Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version
********************************************************
NOTICE
********************************************************
This document was converted from Microsoft Word.
Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.
All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.
Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.
If you need the complete document, download the
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.
*****************************************************************
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
)
) File No. EB-09-SE-242
In the Matter of
) NAL/Acct. No. 201032100026
Phonejammer.com
) FRN # 0019731959
)
Notice of apparent Liability for forfeiture
Adopted: April 20, 2010 Released: April 20, 2010
By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:
I. introduction
1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find
Phonejammer.com ("Phonejammer") apparently liable for a forfeiture in
the amount of twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000) for willful and
repeated violations of Section 302(b) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended ("Act"), and Section 2.803 of the Commission's Rules
("Rules"). The noted apparent violations involve the marketing in the
United States of radio frequency devices designed to intentionally
interfere with licensed cellular and Personal Communications Services
("PCS").
II. BACKGROUND
2. On May 22, 2008, the Spectrum Enforcement Division ("Division") of
the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") issued a Citation to Phonejammer
pursuant to Section 503(b)(5) of the Act. The Citation cited
Phonejammer for marketing in the United States radio frequency
devices designed to intentionally interfere with cellular and "PCS"
frequencies ("phone jammers") in violation of Section 302(b) of the
Act and Section 2.803 of the Rules. In the Citation, the Division
determined that there was sufficient evidence on Phonejammer's
website of marketing phone jammers in the United States to overcome
Phonejammer's denial of such marketing. Specifically, Division staff
had observed on Phonejammer's website the marketing of phone jammers,
the pricing of phone jammers with United States currency, the listing
of the United States as the default shipping location, and the
listing of testimonials of United States citizens regarding phone
jammers that they had purchased from Phonejammer. The Citation
explicitly warned Phonejammer that future violations of the Act and
Rules relating to any matter raised in the Citation may result in
monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or
each day of a continuing violation, in accordance with the statutory
limits then in effect. The Citation also gave Phonejammer 30 days to
respond to the Citation through a personal interview at the nearest
Commission Field Office or a written statement. Phonejammer did not
request a personal interview or submit a written statement in
response to the Citation.
3. On November 9, 2009, the Bureau's Dallas, Texas Field Office ("Dallas
Field Office") received a complaint from a provider regarding
interference to its authorized cellular and PCS frequencies in the
800 MHz and 1900 MHz bands. The complainant indicated that it had
traced the interference to a business located in Carrollton, Texas.
During the course of its investigation of the complaint, the Dallas
Field Office determined that the interference had been caused by a 5
watt adjustable power jammer identified as Phonejammer model number
PJ005 ("Model PJ005"), installed at a Carrollton business. An
employee of the Carrollton business admitted to purchasing the Model
PJ005 from Phonejammer on April 21, 2009 using Phonejammer's website,
"phonejammer.com." The employee subsequently relinquished the Model
PJ005 phone jammer to the Dallas Field Office and also provided a
copy of an April 21, 2009 invoice sent by e-mail from
sales@phonejammer.com for the sale and shipment of Model PJ005. The
Phonejammer invoice clearly shows a billing and shipping address in
Carrollton, Texas.
4. On February 4, 2010, the Division issued a Letter of Inquiry ("LOI")
initiating an investigation into Phonejammer's marketing of phone
jammers in the United States. In its March 3, 2010 Response
("Response") to the Division's LOI, Phonejammer, through counsel,
acknowledged that www.phonejammer.com is its website, but denied
marketing or shipping phone jammers to consumers in the United
States. Specifically, Phonejammer claimed that it "does not market to
the United States, and has not shipped or distributed units to the
United States." Phonejammer also stated that it clearly discloses on
its website that its phone jammers are not marketed in the United
States, that use of its phone jammers is prohibited by law in the
United States, and that its phone jammers are not authorized for use
in the United States. Despite being specifically directed to do so,
Phonejammer failed to attest to the truth and accuracy of the
information contained in its Response under penalty of perjury by
providing an affadivit or other sworn statement signed by an officer
of Phonejammer with personal knowledge of the facts stated within the
Response.
5. In March 2010, during the course of investigating a complaint from
the St. Lucie County, Florida Sheriff's Office ("SLCSO") regarding
interference to cellular and PCS frequencies utilized by SLCSO
detectives, the Bureau's Tampa, Florida Field Office ("Tampa Field
Office") traced the interference to a phone jammer installed at a
business located in Port St. Lucie, Florida. The phone jammer was
identified as an 8 watt adjustable power jammer, Phonejammer model
number PJ006 ("Model PJ006"). The owner of the Port St. Lucie
business admitted to purchasing the Model PJ006 from Phonejammer on
September 24, 2009 using Phonejammer's website, www.phonejammer.com.
The owner relinquished the Model PJ006 phone jammer to the Tampa
Field Office and also provided a copy of his credit card statement
showing a charge dated September 25, 2009, for the purchase and
shipment of the device from Phonejammer.
III. Discussion
A. Marketing of Phone Jammers in the United States
6. Section 302(b) of the Act provides that "[n]o person shall
manufacture, import, sell, offer for sale, or ship devices or home
electronic equipment and systems, or use devices, which fail to
comply with regulations promulgated pursuant to this section."
Section 2.803(a) of the Rules prohibits the marketing of radio
frequency devices in the United States unless the devices are
authorized under the appropriate equipment authorization procedure
and comply with all applicable administrative, technical, labeling
and identification requirements. Ordinarily, intentional radiators
must be authorized in accordance with the certification procedures
set forth in Section 2.1031 through Section 2.1060 of the Rules prior
to marketing in the United States.
7. Section 2.803(g) of the Rules, however, provides in pertinent part:
[R]adio frequency devices that could not be authorized or legally operated
under the current rules ... shall not be operated, advertised, displayed,
offered for sale or lease, sold or leased, or otherwise marketed absent a
license issued under part 5 of this chapter or a special temporary
authorization issued by the Commission.
In addition, Section 333 of the Act prohibits any person from willfully or
maliciously interfering with or causing interference to any radio
communications of any station licensed or authorized by the Commission.
Thus, intentional radiators that cannot legally be operated - because, for
example, they interfere with or jam authorized cellular or PCS
communications in violation of the requirements set forth in Section 333
of the Act - are not eligible for a grant of equipment certification.
8. Notwithstanding Phonejammer's claim that it does not market phone
jammers in the United States, and has not shipped or distributed
units to the United States, the record before us clearly demonstrates
that on at least two occasions within the past year, Phonejammer has
sold and shipped phone jammers to individuals in the United States.
As noted above, an individual in Carrollton, Texas purchased a Model
PJ005 phone jammer via Phonejammer's website on April 21, 2009 and an
individual in Port St. Lucie, Florida purchased a Model PJ006 phone
jammer via Phonejammer's website on September 24, 2009. Phonejammer
shipped both devices to addresses in the United States. In addition,
information on Phonejammer's website and an examination of the Model
PJ005 and Model PJ006 phone jammers relinquished to the Bureau's
Field Offices indicates that these devices are intended to - and do
in fact - interfere with licensed communications services. These
devices, therefore, are not eligible to receive a grant of
certification and may not be marketed in the United States. Moreover,
we note that any disclaimers on Phonejammer's website regarding the
marketing and use of phone jammers in the United States do not
relieve Phonejammer of its obligation to comply with the FCC's
requirements concerning the marketing of radio frequency devices in
the United States. Accordingly, we conclude that Phonejammer
apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the
Act and Section 2.803 of the Rules by marketing two models of phone
jammers in the United States.
B. Proposed Forfeiture
9. Under Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(1) of the
Rules, any person who is determined by the Commission to have
willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with any provision of the
Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission shall
be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. To impose
such a forfeiture penalty, the Commission must issue a notice of
apparent liability and the person against whom such notice has been
issued must have an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such
forfeiture penalty should be imposed. The Commission will then issue
a forfeiture if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the
person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. We conclude under
this standard that Phonejammer is apparently liable for forfeiture
for its apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 302(b) of
the Act and Section 2.803 of the Rules.
10. Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, and Section 1.80(b)(3) of the Rules,
authorizes the Commission to assess against entities, such as
Phonejammer - who are not common carriers, broadcast licensees, or
cable operators - a maximum forfeiture of $16,000 for each violation,
or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of
$112,500 for any single continuing violation. In determining the
appropriate forfeiture amount, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act
directs the Commission to consider factors, such as "the nature,
circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect
to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior
offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may
require."
11. Section 503(b)(6) of the Act bars the Commission from proposing a
forfeiture for violations that occurred more than a year prior to the
issuance of an NAL. Section 503(b)(6) of the Act does not, however,
bar the Commission from assessing whether Phonejammer's conduct prior
to that time period apparently violated the provisions of the Act and
Rules and from considering such conduct in determining the
appropriate forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the
one-year statutory period. Thus, while we may consider Phonejammer's
prior conduct, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only
to Phonejammer's marketing in the United States of the two models of
phone jammers within the past year.
12. Under the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of
Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines
("Forfeiture Policy Statement") and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the
base forfeiture amount for each violation involving the marketing of
unauthorized equipment is $7,000. Further, we have found that each
instance of marketing of an unauthorized model constitutes a separate
violation. Consistent with recent precedent, we propose the
imposition of a base forfeiture of $7,000 per model for an aggregate
base forfeiture of $14,000 ($7,000 base forfeiture multiplied by two
models) against Phonejammer for the marketing of two models of phone
jammers in the United States in apparent willful and repeated
violation of the requirements set forth in Section 302(b) of the Act
and Section 2.803 of the Rules.
13. Having considered the statutory factors enumerated above, however, we
conclude that a significant upward adjustment is warranted.
Phonejammer marketed its two models of phone jammers in the United
States despite receiving a previous citation for the same behavior.
Such behavior evinces a pattern of intentional non-compliance with
and disregard for Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803 of the
Rules. Moreover, the two models that Phonejammer sold to buyers in
the United States are intended to, and did in fact, interfere with
licensed cellular and PCS frequencies, including frequencies used by
public safety entities. Given the intentional nature of the
violations, the critical safety concerns, and the fact that the two
models are not capable of being authorized, we conclude that a
significant upward adjustment is warranted. Accordingly, we upwardly
adjust the base forfeiture of $14,000 by $11,000, and conclude that
Phonejammer is apparently liable for an aggregrate forfeiture of
$25,000 for its marketing of phone jammers in the United States in
apparent willful and repeated violation of the requirements set forth
in Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803 of the Rules.
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
14. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
Act, and Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the authority delegated by
Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Rules, Phonejammer.com is NOTIFIED of
its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty five
thousand dollars ($25,000) for its willful and repeated violation of
Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803 of the Rules.
15. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules,
within thirty (30) days of the release date of this Notice of
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, Phonejammer.com SHALL PAY the full
amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement
seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.
16. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar
instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications
Commission. The payment must include the NAL/Account Number and FRN
Number referenced above. Payment by check or money order may be
mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St.
Louis, MO 63197-9000. Payment by overnight mail may be sent to U.S.
Bank - Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention
Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101. Payment by wire transfer may be made to
ABA Number 021030004, receiving bank TREAS/NYC, and account number
27000001. For payment by credit card, an FCC Form 159 (Remittance
Advice) must be submitted. When completing the FCC Form 159, enter
the NAL/Account number in block number 23A (call sign/other ID), and
enter the letters "FORF" in block number 24A (payment type code).
Requests for full payment under an installment plan should be sent
to: Chief Financial Officer - Financial Operations, 445 12th Street,
S.W., Room 1-A625, Washington, D.C. 20554. Please contact the
Financial Operations Group Help Desk at 1-877-480-3201 or Email:
ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov with any questions regarding payment procedures.
Phonejammer.com will also send electronic notification to Ricardo
Durham at Ricardo.Durham@fcc.gov and to Nissa Laughner at
Nissa.Laughner@fcc.gov on the date said payment is made.
17. The written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the
proposed forfeiture, if any, must include a detailed factual
statement supported by appropriate documentation and affidavits
pursuant to Sections 1.80(f)(3) and 1.16 of the Rules. The written
statement must be mailed to the Office of the Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.
20554, ATTN: Enforcement Bureau - Spectrum Enforcement Division, and
must include the NAL/Acct. No. referenced in the caption. The
statement should also be e-mailed to Ricardo Durham at
Ricardo.Durham@fcc.gov and to Nissa Laughner at
Nissa.Laughner@fcc.gov.
18. The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a forfeiture
in response to a claim of inability to pay unless the petitioner
submits: (1) federal tax returns for the most recent three-year
period; (2) financial statements prepared according to generally
accepted accounting practices; or (3) some other reliable and
objective documentation that accurately reflects the petitioner's
current financial status. Any claim of inability to pay must
specifically identify the basis for the claim by reference to the
financial documentation submitted.
19. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent
Liability for Forfeiture shall be sent by first class mail and
certified mail return receipt requested to Phonejammer.com, via Fax
at 44700 596 8880, and to Counsel for Phonejammer, Harbottle & Lewis,
LLP, Hanover House, 14 Hanover Square, London W1S 1HP.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
P. Michele Ellison
Chief, Enforcement Bureau
47 U.S.C. S: 302a(b).
47 C.F.R. S: 2.803.
See Phonejammer.com, Citation, 23 FCC Rcd 8264 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf.
Div. 2008) ("Phonejammer Citation").
See 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5) (stating that the Commission has the authority
to assess a forfeiture penalty against any person who does not hold a
license, permit, certificate, or other authorization issued by the
Commission, or an applicant for any of those listed instrumentalities, so
long as such person (A) is first issued a citation of the violation
charged; (B) is given a reasonable opportunity for a personal interview
with an official of the Commission, at the field office of the Commission
nearest to the person's place of residence; and (C) subsequently engages
in conduct of the type described in the citation).
"Marketing" is defined in Section 2.803(e)(4), 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(e)(4),
as the "sale or lease, or offering for sale or lease, including
advertising for sale or lease, or importation, shipment, or distribution
for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease."
See www.phonejammer.com (last accessed April 2, 2010).
See Phonejammer Citation, 23 FCC Rcd at 8265.
Id.
Id. at 8266. See also infra note 35. As noted in paragraph 10, this amount
subsequently has been raised to $16,000.
See Cosmetology Career Center, Warning of Unauthorized Operation and
Interference to Licensed Radio Stations, Document Number W201032500004
(Enf. Bur., Dallas Field Office, November 24, 2009).
See Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division,
Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, to Victor
McCormack, Phonejammer.com (February 4, 2010).
See Letter from Harbottle & Lewis LLP, Counsel for Phonejammer.com, to
Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement
Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (March 3, 2010).
Id. at 1.
Id.
Id. at 2.
See LOI at 3.
47 U.S.C. S: 302a(b).
47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(a).
An intentional radiator is defined by Section 15.3(o) of the Rules, 47
C.F.R. S: 15.3(o), as "[a] device that intentionally generates and emits
radio frequency energy by radiation or induction."
47 C.F.R. S:S: 2.1031-2.1060.
47 C.F.R. S: 15.201(b).
47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(g).
47 U.S.C. S: 333.
We note that although the Citation did not specifically address
Phonejammer's behavior as a Section 1.17(a)(2) violation, 47 C.F.R. S:
1.17(a)(2), the Citation emphasized that evidence gathered from
Phonejammer's website clearly contradicted Phonejammer's claim that it did
not market its phone jammers to individuals in the United States.
Moreover, the Citation noted that Phonejammer failed to attest to the
truth and accuracy of the information in its response. We will issue a
separate Citation to Phonejammer warning it that future violations of
Section 1.17(a)(2) of the Rules will lead to forfeiture liability.
According to Phonejammer's website, the Model PJ005 phone jammer is
compatible with PCS, GSM and CDMA networks and the Model PJ006 is
compatible with 3G, UMTS, PCS, GSM, CDMA and TDMA networks. See
www.phonejammer.com (last accessed April 2, 2010).
See Ramsey Electronics Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture,
22 FCC Rcd 458, 461 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2007) (forfeiture
paid); Gibson Tech Ed., Inc. d/b/a Hobbytron.com, Notice of Apparent
Liability for Forfeiture, 20 FCC Rcd 14438, 14440 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum
Enf. Div. 2005), forfeiture ordered, Forfeiture Order, 21 FCC Rcd 2915
(Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2006), recon. denied, Memorandum Opinion
and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 9642, 9644 (Enf. Bur. 2006) ("Gibson Tech Ed.,
Inc.") (both rejecting attempts to circumvent the prohibition on marketing
of unauthorized equipment by requiring the buyer to sign a certification
placing sole responsibility for compliance on the buyer).
Section 312(f)(1) of the Act defines "willful" as "the conscious and
deliberate commission or omission of [any] act, irrespective of any intent
to violate" the law. 47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(1). The legislative history of
Section 312(f)(1) of the Act clarifies that this definition of willful
applies to both Sections 312 and 503(b) of the Act, H.R. Rep. No. 97-765,
97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982), and the Commission has so interpreted the
term in the Section 503(b) context. See Southern California Broadcasting
Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4388 (1991), recon.
denied, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 3454 (1992) ("Southern
California"); see also Telrite Corporation, Notice of Apparent Liability
for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 7231, 7237 (2008); Regent USA, Notice of
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 10520, 10523 (2007)
(forfeiture paid); San Jose Navigation, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability
for Forfeiture, 21 FCC Rcd 2873 (2006), forfeiture ordered, Forfeiture
Order, 22 FCC Rcd 1040 (2007), consent decree ordered, Order and Consent
Decree, 26 FCC Rcd 1494 (2010) ("San Jose").
Section 312(f)(2) of the Act, which also applies to forfeitures assessed
pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, provides that "[t]he term
`repeated,' ... means the commission or omission of such act more than
once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one
day." 47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(2). See Callais Cablevision, Inc., Notice of
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd 1359, 1362 (2001),
forfeiture ordered, Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 22626 (2002) ("Callais");
Southern California, 6 FCC Rcd at 4388.
We note that Phonejammer offers for sale several other models of phone
jammers on its website. Nevertheless, because the direct evidence of sales
in this proceeding relates only to the Model PJ005 and PJ006 phone
jammers, we are not proposing forfeitures for Phonejammer's marketing of
these other models at this time. If we determine that Phonejammer has sold
and shipped other models of phone jammers to the United States, we may
propose additional forfeitures against Phonejammer for its marketing of
such models in the future.
47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(B).
47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(a)(1).
47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(a)(1).
47 U.S.C. S: 503(b); 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f).
See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7589,
7591 (2002) (forfeiture paid) ("SBC Communications").
47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(D).
47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). The Commission has amended Section 1.80(b)(3) of
the Rules three times to increase the maximum forfeiture amounts, in
accordance with the inflation adjustment requirements contained in the
Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. S: 2461. See Amendment
of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture
Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 23 FCC Rcd 9845 (2008) (adjusting the maximum
statutory amounts for entities who are not common carriers, broadcast
licensees, or cable operators from $11,000/$97,500 to $16,000/$112,500);
Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of
Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 10945 (2004)
(adjusting the maximum statutory amounts for entities who are not common
carriers, broadcast licensees, or cable operators from $11,000/$87,500 to
$11,000/$97,500); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and
Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, Order, 15 FCC Rcd
18221 (2000) (adjusting the maximum statutory amounts for entities who are
not common carriers, broadcast licensees, or cable operators from
$10,000/$75,000 to $11,000/$87,500). The most recent inflation adjustment
took effect September 2, 2008, and applies to violations occurring after
that date. See 73 Fed. Reg. 44663-5.
47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(E).
Id. See also 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(4), Note to paragraph (b)(4): Section
II. Adjustment Criteria for Section 503 Forfeitures.
47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(6).
See 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(D), 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(4); see also,
e.g.,Globcom, Inc. d/b/a Globcom Global Communications, Notice of Apparent
Liability for Forfeiture, 18 FCC Rcd 19893, 19903 (2003), forfeiture
ordered, Forfeiture Order, 21 FCC Rcd 4710 (2006); Roadrunner
Transportation, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 15 FCC Rcd 9669, 9671-72 (2000);
Cate Communications Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 60 RR 2d 1386,
1388 (1986); Eastern Broadcasting Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 10
FCC 2d 37, 37-38 (1967), recon. denied, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11
FCC 2d 193, 195 (1967).
12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999).
47 C.F.R. S: 1.80.
See, e.g., San Jose, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 21 FCC
Rcd at 2877; ACR Electronics, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture, 19 FCC Rcd 22293, 22302 (2004), forfeiture ordered, Forfeiture
Order, 21 FCC Rcd 3698 (2006) (forfeiture paid); Samson Technologies,
Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 19 FCC Rcd 4221, 4225
(2004), consent decree ordered, Order and Consent Decree, 19 FCC Rcd 24509
(2004) (all finding that the marketing of each separate unauthorized model
constitutes a separate violation).
See San Jose, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 21 FCC Rcd at
2877 (proposing $28,000 base forfeiture amount for four devices); Pilot
Travel Centers, LLC, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 19 FCC
Rcd 23113, 23117 (2004) (proposing $91,000 base forfeiture amount for 13
devices), consent decree ordered, Order and Consent Decree, 21 FCC Rcd
5308 (2006)("Pilot"); Rocky Mountain Radar, Notice of Apparent Liability
for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 1334, 1339 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div.
2007), forfeiture ordered, Forfeiture Order, 22 FCC Rcd 15174 (Enf. Bur.,
Spectrum Enf. Div. 2007) (proposing a $14,000 base forfeiture for
marketing two models of radar jamming equipment in the United States);
Gibson Tech Ed., Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 20 FCC
Rcd at 14441 (proposing $14,000 base forfeiture amount for two devices).
See Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17100; see also 47 C.F.R.
S: 1.80(b)(4), Note to paragraph (b)(4): Section II. Adjustment Criteria
for Section 503 Forfeitures (establishing intentional violation as an
upward adjustment factor). See also, e.g., Ramko Distributors Inc., Notice
of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 7161, 7169 (2007)
(upwardly adjusting a proposed forfeiture from $119,000 to $150,000 for
marketing non-certified CB transceivers where an entity continued to
market the devices after receiving a Citation that put it on notice that
the marketing of this type of equipment is unlawful); Pilot, Notice of
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 19 FCC Rcd at 23114 (upwardly adjusting
a proposed forfeiture from 91,000 to $125,000 for marketing non-certified
CB transceivers where an entity continued to market the devices after
receiving Citations that put it on notice that the marketing of this type
of equipment was unlawful); Rocky Mountain Radar, Notice of Apparent
Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd at 1339 (upwardly adjusting a
proposed forfeiture of $14,000 to $25,000 for the marketing of illegal
radar jamming devices after receiving a Citation that put Rocky Mountain
on notice that the marketing of this type of equipment was unlawful, and
after Rocky Mountain unsuccessfully challenged the issuance of the
Citation before the Commission and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals
(citations omitted)).
See San Jose, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 21 FCC Rcd at
2877 (upwardly adjusting a proposed forfeiture for the marketing of four
models of GPS re-radiator kits because, inter alia, the devices
potentially interfere with and jeopardize critical authorized
safety-of-life operations); Pilot, Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture, 19 FCC Rcd at 23117 (upwardly adjusting a proposed forfeiture
based on a finding that the marketing and distribution of unauthorized
radio transmitters, inter alia, potentially interferes with transmitters
and other devices authorized to operate in such frequency ranges);
Callais, Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 22630-32 (upwardly adjusting a
forfeiture based on a finding that a cable system's signal leakage
violations increased the likelihood of interference with aeronautical
frequencies and potentially jeopardized air safety); Centel Cellular of
North Carolina Limited Partnership, Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture, 10 FCC Rcd 915 (1994), modified on other grounds, Memorandum
Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 10800, 10804-05 (1996) (upwardly adjusting a
forfeiture based on a finding that a wireless carrier constructed a tower
that directly penetrated an air safety zone and interfered with airline
flight paths, threatening and potentially jeopardizing air safety).
See San Jose, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 21 FCC Rcd at
2877 (upwardly adjusting a proposed base forfeiture because, inter alia,
the GPS re-radiator kits marketed by an entity could not be authorized).
47 U.S.C. S: 503(b).
47 C.F.R. S: 1.80.
47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111; 0.311.
(Continued from previous page)
(continued ...)
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-669
2
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-669